International Support for Iraqi Democracy

Thank you very
much, Ed. I'd like to first thank Ed Feulner for that kind
introduction. We were just remembering outside that we first met at
Camp David when President George H.W. Bush had some people together
to talk about the Soviet Union. He was going off to meet with
Mikhail Gorbachev that December and it seems like a lifetime ago
that there was actually a Soviet Union and that the big challenge
was to rid the continent of Europe of Communism and the tyranny
therein. And a lot has happened in that very few years. But, Ed,
thank you for your tremendous leadership of this great
organization. I'd also like to recognize Kim Holmes, who I had the
pleasure of working with at the State Department before Ed stole
him away. It's great to see you, Kim. And I'd like to thank the
Board of Trustees, with whom I just briefly had a moment to say
hello. The organization, the Heritage Foundation, is a true bedrock
of our democratic principles, our freedom, our way of life and a
vehicle by which free men and women can debate their future. Thank
you very much for the great work of this organization.

I have come to
Heritage today on the cusp of an historic event. Two days from now,
the Iraqi people will go to the polls for the third time since
January. And they will elect a parliament to govern their nation
for the next four years. All across Iraq today, representatives
from some 300 political parties are staging rallies, they're
holding televised debates, they're hanging campaign posters, and
they're taking their case to the Iraqi people. They are asking for
the consent of the governed.

As this historic
moment approaches, we in America are engaging in our own historic
debate. Many Americans have asked questions about our nation's role
in Iraq. And in recent weeks, President Bush has responded by
clearly describing our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

The American
people want to know who we and the Iraqis are fighting and that we
can win. And President Bush has answered, explaining the nature of
the enemy that we face and why failure is not an option. The enemy
in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists and Saddamists and
terrorists. The rejectionists miss the unjust status they have
lost. But we believe that some of them can be convinced to join a
democratic Iraq that is strong enough to protect minority rights.
The Saddamists are loyal to the old regime and think that they can
regain power by inciting undemocratic sentiment. But as the Iraqi
people become more able to defend their democracy, we believe that
they will increasingly be marginalized.

The final enemy we
face, the terrorists, are a small but deadly group, motivated by
the global ideology of hatred that fuels al-Qaida, and they will
stop at nothing to make Iraq the heart of a totalitarian empire
that encompasses the entire Islamic world. If we quit now, we will
give the terrorists exactly what they want. We will desert Iraq's
democrats at their time of greatest need. We will embolden every
enemy of liberty across the Middle East. We will destroy any chance
that the people of this region have of building a future of hope
and decency. And most of all, we will make America more
vulnerable.

In abandoning
future generations in the Middle East to despair and terror, we
also condemn future generations in the United States to insecurity
and fear. And President Bush has made clear that on his watch,
America will not retreat from a fight that we can and must win.

The American people
also want to know what victory means in Iraq. And President Bush
has answered, defining victory as the establishment of a free and
democratic Iraq that can guarantee the freedom, meet the needs and
defend the rights of all its citizens. As the President has said,
victory in this struggle will not be a singular event, like the
surrender of our enemies on the deck of an American battleship.
Rather, victory, like democracy itself, will be a steady but
definable process that will not be won overnight.

Lastly, and most
importantly, the American people want to know how we and our Iraqi
partners will achieve the victory we seek. And again, President
Bush has answered, describing a national strategy that is broad and
integrated, with three complementary tracks: security, economic and
political.

On the security
track, we are working together with the Iraqis to clear areas from
enemy control, to hold the territory controlled by Iraq's
democratic government and to build the capacity of Iraq's security
forces to defend the rule of law.

On the economic
track, we are helping the people of Iraq to restore their battered
infrastructure, to reform their statist economy and to build the
institutions that sustain economic liberty.

Finally, on the
political track, we are helping the Iraqi people to isolate
incorrigible enemies from democratic supporters, to engage all
citizens who would choose the path of politics over the course of
violence and to build inclusive democratic institutions that
protect the interests of all Iraqis.

Ladies and
Gentlemen: The President is answering America's questions about our
mission in Iraq. And today, I have come to the Heritage Foundation
to address an additional question: What is the international
community doing to advance the cause of victory in Iraq?

To answer simply:
As the Iraqi people have inspired the world by freely embracing
democracy, an international consensus has emerged that securing
democracy in Iraq is strategically essential. This new consensus is
generating international support that, quite frankly, was not fully
present in the earliest days of Iraq's liberation. And this support
exists along each of the three tracks that I've outlined.

On the security
front, our coalition today remains strong and active. Some 30
nations are contributing over 22,000 soldiers, who are risking
their lives alongside brave Iraqi and brave American troops. Like
generations of Americans before them, our men and women in uniform
are distinguishing themselves today through selfless service. They
are heroically defending the freedom of others against a determined
enemy. And we in America mourn the loss and honor the sacrifice of
our many sons and daughters who have fallen in Iraq and around the
world to protect our way of life.

Our coalition in
Iraq includes several partners, both old and new, who are also
making historic contributions. No ally has assumed greater
responsibility than Great Britain. Japan is maintaining its first
significant overseas military deployment in 60 years. South Korea
has more soldiers in Iraq today than any other ally except Great
Britain. And even a small nation like El Salvador is making a large
impact, sustaining the biggest and most distant deployment in its
nation's history.

America is
grateful to every nation that stands with us in Iraq. Our coalition
members have suffered nearly 200 dead and 500 wounded. And we
especially note with some pride and some understanding that some of
our strongest partners from the very beginning, those whose desire
to fight tyranny is most fierce and for those with whom the memory
of tyranny is most fresh.

Coalition forces
today have responsibility for security in nearly 40 percent of
Iraq. In southern Iraq, Britain and Poland are commanding
multinationaldivisions,
encompassing 19 nations in total, that are helping to root out
terrorists and maintain security. Coalition field hospitals have
treated more than three quarters of a million Iraqis. And smaller
deployments from nations like Kazakhstan and Bosnia and Herzegovina
are removing thousands of landmines and old ordinance.

Our coalition
partners are also contributing to the important work of building
effective Iraqi security forces. NATO is now participating in the
training of Iraq's new military. And Jordan is hosting a major
police academy that is preparing thousands of Iraqis every month to
protect and serve their fellow citizens. In addition, Hungary has
donated dozens of tanks to Iraq's military. And Japan has provided
more than one thousand vehicles like fire trucks and ambulances to
Iraq's police and security forces.

Now, over time, the
size and shape of our coalition will continue to evolve. In the
coming months, some nations will reduce their number of troops in
combat, but will continue to assume new security missions,
including the training and equipping of Iraq's military. Other
countries, however, will extend the mandate for their forces as
many have done in just the past few weeks.

Over time, the
role of our coalition will also evolve, as Iraqis assume greater
responsibility for their own security. With every passing day,
Iraqis become better able to defend their nation and themselves and
this enables us to shift more of our forces to helping Iraqis build
the institutions of their new democracy. In the coming months and
years, this will enable America's men and women in uniform, as well
as those of our coalition, to return home to their families with
the honor that they deserve.

As the security
situation in Iraq improves, so too does the prospect for Iraq's
economic reconstruction. It is difficult, however, to overstate the
extent of this challenge. For several decades, Saddam Hussein
robbed his nation to enrich himself, destroying Iraq's
infrastructure and abusing its most valuable resource: the talented
Iraqi people themselves. In less than three years, however, the
increased generosity of the international community has begun to
build the foundation of a modern economy in Iraq and to liberate
the entrepreneurial spirit of the Iraqi people.

Two years ago in
Madrid, almost 40 countries and international institutions pledged
$13.5 billion in assistance to Iraq. And as Iraq continues its
transformation into a stable democracy, donors are making good on
their promises. Today, this money is providing the Iraqi people
access to more clean water and better health care, to renovate its
schools with better teachers and upgraded houses in some of Iraq's
poorest neighborhoods. And Iraqis are making the most of this
increased opportunity: They have started three times as many
businesses in two and a half years of freedom as they did in four
whole decades of tyranny.

Iraq's
international partners have also helped to liberate the Iraqi
people from much of the crushing debt with which Saddam burdened
the country. Last year, the Paris Club of international creditors
agreed to forgive 80 percent of the $40 billion of Iraqi debt that
is held by Club members, one of the most generous forgiveness
efforts in the group's history. This is a positive example that we
are encouraging others to follow.

And in early 2004,
the World Bank and the United Nations established the International
Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq. Canada is serving as its
co-chair and providing $85 million to the Facility, which has
already received over $1 billion in contributions from 25
countries. These funds are enabling millions of Iraqis in cities to
enjoy clean drinking water, improved sanitation in their poorest
neighborhoods, and make a better life. And in the past year alone,
this money has financed the rehabilitation and construction of
hundreds of school buildings and provided 69 million new textbooks
to children of all ages in nearly all of Iraq's schools.

The gradual
improvement of Iraq's economy and the Iraqi government's
increasingly responsible fiscal leadership are also restoring the
confidence of international financial institutions. Recently, the
World Bank approved $500 million in development loans for Iraq to
modernize its transportation, water, and education systems. And the
International Monetary Fund, having determined that Iraq qualifies
for $450 million in emergency assistance, is now working with the
Iraqi Government to implement a long-term program for economic
reform.

Now, despite the
growing international support for Iraq's reconstruction, more needs
to be done. Many nations, especially Japan and South Korea, have
distinguished themselves with their generosity. But others, like
Iraq's neighbors, should be doing a lot more. And for all who have
pledged assistance to the Iraqi people, it is now time to
deliver.

Finally, on the
political front, the international community is increasingly
overcoming old divisions and supporting Iraq's transition to
democracy. We have now passed fourmajor Security Council
resolutions on Iraq, most of them unanimously, pledging the UN's
support for everything from an international mandate for our
coalition forces, to an international rejection of terrorism in
Iraq, to the goal of advancing Iraq's democratic process.

Yet, as welcome as
this broad support is, I'm sad to say that the international
community has barely done anything to help Iraq prosecute Saddam
Hussein. All who expressed their devotion to human rights and the
rule of law have a special obligation to help the Iraqis bring to
justice one of the world's most murderous tyrants. The
international community's effective boycott of Saddam's trial is
only harming the Iraqi people, who are now working to secure the
hope of justice and freedom that Saddam long denied them.

The Iraqi people
clearly voiced their desire for freedom through democratic
elections this January. And the sight of eight million free Iraqis,
proudly displaying their ink-stained fingers, inspired new levels
of international support for the goal of democracy in Iraq. In
June, the United States and the European Union co-hosted an
international conference in Brussels, at which more than 80
countries agreed to a new international partnership to support
Iraq's freely elected government.

The courage and
conviction of the Iraqi people has also inspired new assistance
from the United Nations, especially in preparation for Thursday's
elections. The UN supported Iraq in its successful constitutional
referendum in October and before that in its elections in January,
helping the Iraqis do everything from train election workers, to
administering polling sites, to print and distribute five million
copies of their constitution to their fellow citizens.

Finally, a new and
hopeful change has been the growing support that Iraq now receives
from its neighbors. Of course, countries like Jordan and Kuwait and
Qatar were early supporters of Iraq's liberation. And Jordan's King
Abdullah has consistently championed the emergence of a free Iraq
and welcomed its integration into the region.

But lately, others
have joined this course as well. Last year, Egypt hosted an
international conference in Sharm el-Sheikh to support the Iraqi
people. And Iraq's neighbors have welcomed it back into the Arab
League. Many Arab governments now recognize the legitimacy of
Iraq's democratically elected leaders and this newfound support
culminated in the recent Arab League conference in Cairo in which
states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia encouraged Iraq's Sunnis to
reject violence and to join the democratic process and to
participate in Thursday's elections. The process of supporting
national accord in Iraq should continue early next year when there
will be another international conference hosted by the Arab
League.

Now, some of
Iraq's neighbors are showing themselves to be no friends of the
Iraqi people. Syria has still not taken sufficient action to stop
the terrorists who cross into Iraq from its territory. And Iran
continues to meddle in Iraqi affairs and to support violence in
Iraqi society.

Nevertheless, the
enemies of Iraq are increasingly fewer and isolating themselves
from the international community, because today, the world is more
united than ever in support of a new Iraq. In just two days, when
Iraqis make history by electing the most democratic leaders in the
entire Middle East, they will do so with the moral and financial
and diplomatic backing of an overwhelming majority of the
world.

This is remarkable
when you consider how sharply divided the world was only three
years ago. President Bush's vision of an Iraqi democracy, standing
as a tribute to its citizens and serving as an inspiration to its
neighbors, was neither grasped nor supported by many in the
international community. Many believed that despotism was the
permanent political condition of the Middle East. And they were
prepared to countenance the false stability of undemocratic
governments.

But there were
others who knew better. Nations as different as Ukraine and
Australia, Great Britain and South Korea, Poland and Japan,
Lithuania and El Salvador, nations that were united by the shared
conviction that liberty is not a scarce possession to be selfishly
horded. Rather, it is a universal right that all free peoples must
defend.

Today, countries
that previously doubted the promise of democracy in Iraq are
rallying to Iraq's side. The Iraqi people are seizing an
unprecedented opportunity to live at last in peace and in freedom.
And their democratic example is inspiring impatient patriots in
places like Lebanon and Egypt and the Palestinian territories --
courageous men and women who are now finding ever more supporters
in the international community to champion their aspirations and
defend their dignity.

The lesson, my
friends, is clear: When America leads with principle in the world,
freedom's cause grows stronger. We saw this when Ronald Reagan
spurned friendly dictators and supported freedom's cause in Latin
America. We saw this as well when Reagan called out the true
character of the Soviet Union and liberated a democratic longing
that ended the Cold War. And we are seeing this today, as the world
awakens to the promise of a free Iraq.

I would like to
thank all of you here at the Heritage Foundation for your continued
support for America's principled leadership in the world because
without it, the world suffers and America suffers, too. Thank you
for letting me speak with you this evening.

Questions and
Answers

Dr. Edwin J.
Feulner: Thank you, Madame Secretary. The Secretary has agreed
to take some questions.

Question:
Dr. Rice, it's good to see you again.

Secretary
Rice: Thank you.

Question: I
have a great stake at Iraq. My son served a tour. He just came
back.

I listen to you
now and I have listened to you before a few times and you have to
understand you are empowering a lot of people, especially in Saudi
Arabia. My question is, as you know and most of the people in this
room know, that the Saudi policies and their extremist religious
institutions pose a great threat to this country's values
domestically and interests internationally.

Recently, you
formed -- or the Administration formed six working committees to
deal with the American-Saudi relations. None of those committees is
assigned to deal with promoting democracy in Saudi Arabia. If I am
right, why is that not happening?

Secretary
Rice: Thank you very much. First of all, thank you for your
son's service in Iraq and also the sacrifice that the family had to
make in order for that to take place.

We have indeed
formed committees with the Saudis, but let me start by saying that
when I was in Saudi Arabia, both times, I stood next to the Saudi
Foreign Minister and I talked about the importance of reform in
Saudi Arabia and indeed the empowerment of women, that women need
to vote. You'll notice that there is a committee on human
development. That committee has wide range to talk about human
development, to talk about how human beings prosper, and it is very
clearly our view and it will therefore be introduced into the
conversation in that group that human beings only develop in the
context of political pluralism and democracy and reform.

Saudi Arabia is a
complicated state that is at the beginning, we hope, of its reform
process. We are prepared to start where states are and to move
forward. But I think we've made very clear that -- the President
made very clear in his Second Inaugural Address that his call to
have democratic aspirations of people around the world answered did
not stop at the border of the Middle East, nor did it stop at the
border of any of our friends.

We've made the
mistake in the past, for the last 60 years, of assuming that we
could have stability without democracy. And so whether it is Saudi
Arabia or other friends of ours, we have expectations about reform
and about democracy, and that will be a part of our dialogue.

Thank you. Let's
see, in the back here.

Question:
As you laid out today, the case for our policies in Iraq is very
strong and overwhelming. My question is why did the Administration
wait so long to make the case?

(Laughter.)

Secretary
Rice: Well, to be absolutely fair, I think we thought we were
making the case over the last period of time. The President has
talked a lot about it. We've been in before Congress. We've -- all
of us -- been on -- Don and the Vice President, all of us have been
out there talking.

But what the
President has done, I think, in the last few -- last couple of
weeks, really, is to go to the American people with a kind of
renewed sense of urgency about what it is we face in Iraq and what
it is that we risk in Iraq if we do not succeed.

It is perfectly
acceptable, indeed it is natural in a democracy, to debate
policies, no matter how important those policies are. But it is
also incumbent upon the President, as he has been doing, to say to
the American people we can have our disagreements, we can have our
debates, but here are the risks if we take certain courses of
action.

And while I
respect and I know the President respects all of those who have a
different view about our commitment in Iraq, who had a different
view about the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein after all of
those years of his defiance of the international system, I do think
that the case is very clear that we cannot fail in Iraq, that we
have not just a tremendous opportunity to have a different kind of
Iraq at the center of a different kind of Middle East, and
therefore make ourselves safer, but we also have a responsibility
to recognize that there could also be a different kind of Iraq and
a different kind of Middle East that would be very bad for American
interests and for world stability.

America has always
wanted to finish the job. I've been, as of late, talking about the
circumstances after World War II. And when I look back on that
period of time, I can't imagine what our predecessors were going
through as they watched strategic defeat after strategic defeat
after strategic defeat, whether it was the communists winning large
minorities in France and Italy in 1946, or in 1947 the Greek civil
war and the tensions and the strife in Turkey, or in 1948 Germany
permanently divided in the Berlin events, or in 1948 the
Czechoslovak coup, or in 1949 the Soviet Union exploding a nuclear
weapon five years ahead of schedule and the Chinese communists
winning their civil war. Those weren't minor setbacks. Those were
huge strategic defeats. And yet they pulled themselves together and
they laid a foundation for peace to the point that today, today, no
one can imagine war between the great powers of Europe ever again.
It was not inevitable in 1945 or 1946 that no one could imagine war
between France and Germany. It was not inevitable that Japan was
going to emerge as a free, democratic state and an ally of the
United States after what we had suffered in Pearl Harbor and in the
Pacific. Nothing was inevitable about any of this and yet now it
seems inevitable.

And so I think
that what we've been trying to do and what the President has been
doing is to tell people what the stakes are, but also to say if we
follow through, if we keep our counsel, if we keep our eye on the
values that we are espousing, that we're going to get to a day 10,
20, 30 years from now when people are going to look back and say:
What was all the fuss about? The Middle East is a place of peace
and democracy and there's a peaceful Palestinian state living side
by side with Israel and the people of Syria and the people of Iran
and the people of all of these states are living in a democracy,
and it will be unimaginable that it could be a region that produces
an ideology of hatred so great that people fly airplanes into
buildings on a fine September day.

And so I think
what the President is challenging the American people to do is to
look at what could happen if we do not finish our job, but also at
what could happen if we do finish our job. And that has always been
the role of American leadership to have a vision of a future that
is fundamentally different than the present.

Question:
Madame Secretary.

Secretary
Rice: Microphone. Microphone right here.

Question:
Oh, thank you. Let me start anew. Madame Secretary, to me you are
an inspiration for the achievement of the American goals to bring
freedom not only to Iraq but to the rest of the world, and keeping
in mind their culture because that's very important. We win by
understanding people. And I think you have brought that message
very well.

Now my question is
we are going to (inaudible.) Iraq is going to elections on the
15th, okay. The terrorists always manage to surprise us with the
most unexpected surprises at the last moment. How well are we
prepared to ensure that people will go to vote and be alive
(inaudible)?

Secretary
Rice: Yes.

Question:
Thank you.

Secretary
Rice: Well, thank you. And indeed, there are many, many
preparations that have taken place to provide security during the
Iraqi elections. We are a part of that, the coalition forces. And
you may have noticed on television that Iraqi security forces are
voting some two days ahead of time. Well, that's because it's
expected that they're going to be out protecting their fellow
citizens to vote when the voting actually starts in earnest on
Thursday. And so the Iraqi security forces have made a lot of
preparations and we have, too.

But it is a sign
of how far we've come. I can tell you that back in January, when
the elections took place, it was principally coalition forces that
provided the security and the Iraqis provided some security and
indeed they helped a lot, and one thing that General Casey was very
proud of was that they stayed their ground. But there weren't very
many of them and they didn't really have as much of a lead. These
days, they're able to provide a much stronger element of the
security. But I can assure you there's a lot of work that's gone
into it.

I cannot guarantee
that the terrorist won't do something. Heaven knows, I think
they'll try. Because as we know from the Zawahirian-Zarqawi
exchange, their worst fear is that these elections and that
democracy actually starts to take hold. I mean, Zarqawi has
impugned democracy as some kind of foreign idea that only apostates
would be interested in. So democracy is a threat to them. And every
time there's a successful election in Iraq, they lose some steam.
So of course they will try, but we've made all the preparations we
can. And the most important thing is the Iraqi people have
demonstrated their willingness to take risks in order to have their
democracy.

Yes.

Question:
Thank you for being with us, Secretary Rice. My question is, you
just returned from a successful trip to Europe. Could you give us
an update on your conversations with our allies there?

Secretary
Rice: Yes. Well, it depends on your definition of successful, I
guess. (Laughter.) But I did have very good discussions with our
European allies. And what I wanted to do -- first of all, let me
just highlight a couple of things that didn't get very much
press.

We signed a
defense agreement with Romania and that military access agreement
will allow, at any time, 1500 or so American forces to actually be
deployed in Romania for purposes of training. And for somebody like
me, kind of an old Warsaw Pact specialist, that's really kind of a
remarkable breakthrough. And the Romanians have demonstrated that
they are a firm ally in the war on terrorism. They've had their
people in Iraq. They right there on the spot said that they're
re-upping for the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. So that was a
major breakthrough.

At NATO, the NATO
allies agreed to expand significantly their presence in
Afghanistan, which NATO now has responsibility for significant
parts of Afghanistan, allowing our troops to really fight
terrorists while the International Security Assistance Forces,
which NATO oversees, are able to provide security for
reconstruction and that kind of effort in what are called
Provincial Reconstruction Teams. And so they go out to an area.
They go out with military forces to protect, with civilian forces
to build both political and economic institutions. That effort has
been expanded by NATO.

What an amazing
thing for NATO, an organization that I can tell you in 1989, 1990,
1991, people were saying, "Is NATO going to survive the end of the
Cold War?" Well, not only has NATO survived the end of the Cold
War, but they're in Afghanistan, they're training troops in Iraq,
and by the way, supporting the African Union mission in Darfur. So
this is a wonderful institution and it was great to see it do what
it's doing.

I also went to
Ukraine. This is a young and in some ways struggling democracy, but
what an amazing story of the Ukrainian people having taken their
fate into their own hands. And we also did discuss at some length
some of the questions that were out there about American practices
concerning detainees and interrogation. I wanted to make the point
that the United States respects the rule of law, that the United
States respects human rights. We, indeed, are a leader; that the
President would never and has never condoned torture and that we
respect U.S. law and international obligations. I also wanted to
say that within that context, anything that is legal; we should be
prepared to do anything that is legal to prevent another terrorist
attack.

I reminded people
that terrorism is not like a criminal offense. If you allow the
criminal in this case to carry out the crime before you prosecute
them, then 3,000 people will be dead in New York and Washington,
hundreds will be dead in Madrid and in London, scores will be dead
in a Palestinian wedding in Jordan.

What is different
about this war is that you're talking about a kind of stateless
enemy that is often within our borders, that is there for the
express purpose of hurting us and where the goal is the wanton
slaughter of innocents. It's not collateral damage what happened in
Jordan. It's not collateral damage what happened in New York. It's
not collateral damage what happened in London. The target is men,
women and children going to work on a subway or working in the
World Trade Tower or going to a Palestinian wedding in Jordan. That
was the target.

And so we are
always going to respect our obligations in terms of our own law and
in terms of our international obligations. We're also going to
recognize that this is a different war and the United States
President, most especially, has an obligation to defend the
American people; and much of the intelligence that we have garnered
has defended not only the American people, but populations around
the world through our intelligence sharing.

Question:
Dr. Rice, you make a convincing argument that we are moving towards
democracy in Iraq. But my question and my concern is the presence
of the insurgency. How do we have a democracy in a country when we
have individuals who don't believe in a democracy? You talked about
consent of the governed in the beginning of your speech, in the
beginning of the introduction. How do you move forward to truly
having a democracy -- we know democracy just isn't elections --
when certain individuals just don't want to play by the rules of
the game? And how do we move about getting rid of this
insurgency?

Secretary
Rice: It's a very good question and we are indeed witnessing
simultaneously two sets of events that seem contradictory. On the
one hand, you see Iraqis participating in their political process,
having their political parties, putting up posters, people are
campaigning. I can tell you, I talked to Iraqi politicians when I
was there and they're getting their platforms together and it
really -- it's in that sense the political system is maturing
actually rather rapidly when you consider that it's two years ago
that Saddam Hussein was actually captured.

On the other hand,
you have this track where you have violence against the Iraqi
people. The strong belief is and there is lots of evidence over
history in terms of insurgencies that an insurgency cannot maintain
itself without political support, and that as more and more people
recognize that their future is with the political track, not with
violence, they will turn away from these people. By the way, these
people have to live among them. They have to live off the land to a
certain extent. And to the degree that people turn them in rather
than turn a blind eye to them, it's going to be harder.

We're getting more
and more tips about -- from Iraqis about activities that are going
on over there. And you're beginning to see as the Sunnis join the
political process, more and more people who might have been in one
way or another associated with insurgency or supportive or at least
turning a blind eye, saying, well, we should end violence and go to
the political process.

The political
process has got to demonstrate in Iraq that it is capable of
advancing the interests of all Iraqis. That's why it is important
that Sunnis participate. It's why the constitutional process which
has the possibility of amendment is important. But I think we
sometimes need to just step back and remember that this is a
country that was drawn essentially on the kind of fault line
between Shia and Sunni Islam with Kurds thrown into the mix and
lots of other people as well. It's not a homogenous population. It
has principally managed that fact by violence and/or repression.
And now they're trying to manage that fact by consensus building
and politics and compromise. And it's hard. It's really hard. But
they are showing amazing resilience to want the process, the
political process, to be where they actually do engage in bringing
all their interests to bear.

I would note that
I think there may be violence for a long time. You know, it's
cowardly but it's not that hard to blow up a group of
schoolchildren at a bus. And what will hopefully, eventually, make
that less likely is that, first of all, the insurgency is split off
from the people, and secondly that the forces, the security forces,
the intelligence forces of Iraq get stronger to be able to deal
with that. And we think that process is underway.

Now, that's the
internal dynamic. But there is -- there's a hardened core of
terrorists there who came to Iraq to fight the same violent
so-called jihad that they were fighting in Afghanistan and have
fought in other places, and they have to be defeated. There is no
politics in which they would be involved because their view of the
Middle East is 180 degrees different than the view of the Middle
East that most of the region has. They don't believe in women's
rights. They don't believe in tolerance of others. They don't
believe in consent of the governed. And they are not going to be
reformed in any way. And so they have to be defeated and that's why
you see American and other coalition forces having to make these
military activities in the Euphrates Valley or places like
that.

Yes. Can we get
this gentleman right here in the middle?

Question:
Dr. Rice, thank you very much. How can you stop the Iranian
meddling in Iraq which you mentioned and how will the democracy --
success of democracy in Iraq will affect countries like Iran?

Secretary
Rice: Yes. Well, thank you. And let me say a word about Iran.
First of all, we've always said that we expect Iraq to have
relations with Iran; it's their neighbor. As long as their
transparent relations, from our point of view, it's only natural.
The problem is when Iran somehow is supporting some of the
terrorists. The British, for instance, have talked about their
concerns that the Iranians might be providing certain kinds of
technology to enhance the capability of attacks in that region. We
know that Iran wants to be involved in non-transparent ways in the
politics of Iraq.

But I think we
have a couple things going for us. First is that there really has
to be an international spotlight on that, and I want to return back
to that in a moment.

But secondly, I
don't have any sense that the Iraqis wish to trade the tyranny of
Saddam Hussein for the tyranny of the mullahs in Iran. Iraqis are
proud people. They are a great culture in their own right. They are
a people for whom religious difference has been a source of
division and violence, but it doesn't have to be. The Iraqis will
explain to you that their tribes are intermingled. An Iraqi will
say to you, "Well, I'm married to a Shia. My daughter just married
a Kurd." The societal fabric I think will support something very
different.

And so to the
degree that Iraq becomes stronger, I think Iran will find it harder
to do what it's trying to do. But in the short term, the
international community has to draw attention to it and to say to
Iran this is not acceptable. Transparent relations absolutely are
acceptable, but this kind of meddling is not.

It speaks to a
larger problem with Iran, which is that it is a state that is out
of step with the direction in the Middle East. It is a state that
we worry a great deal about its pursuit of nuclear technology that
would lead to a nuclear weapon. I think the international community
is united that that cannot happen. It is a state that supports
Palestinian rejectionists as well as groups like Hamas and
Hezbollah, which is continuing to try to cause difficulties in
places like Lebanon, at a time when the international community is
trying to support a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.

And perhaps most
importantly, it is a regime that where an unelected few frustrate
the aspirations of a great people -- the Iranian people. These are
a people who are educated and cultured and scientifically in the
lead, and they suffer under this terrible regime. Now, the recent
comments by their new President have, I think, sharpened the
contradictions and made clearer that this regime is out of step
with the international community. And I do think that it has to be
said, it has to be spoken, that Iran is a problem for a stable and
democratizing Middle East and the international community will have
to find a way to deal with that.

Yes, sir.

Question:
Madame Secretary, thank you for being with us this afternoon. My
question involves Indonesia and this is the fourth largest country
population-wise in the world, the largest Muslim population. They
just had a rather popular, forward-looking leader whose called SBY
-- S-B-Y -- because of his initials. And the question is what is
the United States -- how are we cooperating with SBY and Indonesia,
at this point, to move them forward with us?

Secretary
Rice: Yes, Indonesia is an extremely important country. In
fact, we just -- the President just met with President Yudhoyono
when he was in Korea and I have met with my colleague on a couple
of different occasions. Indonesia is a place that is complicated in
its religious and ethnic composition. It's spread out as an
archipelago and so in many ways difficult to govern. But we have
now in this new government, as you say, a reformist, a government
that is forward leaning. One of the things that they have said is
that they want to be a voice for moderate forms of Islam that
understand that democracy, which by the way they went through great
elections to get there, that democracy and Islam are by no means
enemies of one another and that people of all ethnic groups and all
heritages and religious heritages can live together. And so we need
to support this government and we're trying to do that.

I might just make
a point about President Yudhoyono. He was actually a graduate of
our International Military Educational Training program, IMET. And
it underscores something that I think is very important. I can't
tell how many times around the world I run into or the President
sees leaders who have studied in the United States or have been a
part of our military exchange programs or at the very least been
part of our International Visitors Programs. And they have a
different perspective on America. They know us better and they are
less given to the kind of caricatures and stereotypes about the
United States. And so we have a very deep interest in keeping open
to the exchange of people as well as the exchange of ideas.

I am always very
proud to note they go to universities all over the country. It's
not just Yale or Harvard or Stanford. It's also to places in the
middle of the country, the University of Iowa, Texas A&M or
wherever. And it's a good thing that they come here. And I think
the President of Indonesia is a very good example of that. We are
going to support his government. We've just made it possible for
our military exchanges to be broadened because we think that's an
important institution. We, of course were, I think, quick to
respond and it was welcomed, the response to the tsunami, which is
another way for America to demonstrate that we are fighting a war
against terrorists.

This is not a war
on Islam. Islam is an honorable religion. It is one of the world's
great religions. It has every possibility to live in peace with
other religions. And as we know in our own country as well as in
other democracies, people of Islamic faith are some of the
strongest supporters of democratic development. And so Indonesia is
an important example of that.

Thank you. One
last question? All right. The lady right here.

Question:
As an expert on the former Soviet Union, I wondered if you'd
comment on where those countries are now and also if President
Bush's recent comments have improved his public opinion in Western
Europe.

Secretary
Rice: Well, I'll tell you, on the public opinion side, the
President always makes very clear that he doesn't read the polls
and he doesn't intend to. Because I think we can take snapshots of
what people think at any point in time, but I believe that the
respect for America and for American values and for what America
did for that continent is something that's very deeply ingrained in
Europe. You feel it more fully when you're in the room with the new
united Europe, and I don't mean the European Union specifically. I
mean the United Europe as you see at a table at NATO, for instance,
where you sit with not just Germany and France and Great Britain,
and the Netherlands, but you sit also with Poland and Hungary and
Romania and Lithuania and Latvia and Slovenia.

And you're
reminded that this was not always the case; that it was not that
many year ago -- less than 20 years ago -- that the Soviet Union
still dominated Eastern Europe, still sat deep into the heart of
Eastern Europe, but Germany was still divided into one part free,
and one part not. That people like me who had grown up studying the
Soviet Union expected that that was the way things were going to be
for a long time.

Now to be fair,
it's hard. Places like Ukraine are -- have just been through their
Orange Revolution and they're struggling with whatever young
revolutionary government does, which is that they now really have
to provide for their people because people are inspired by the
revolution, but they also want to know are my kids going to be
better educated and then am I going to have a better life. And so
they're struggling with those things.

If you go to a
place like Romania, they're struggling with how to get foreign
investment into their country. If you go to a place like Hungary,
they actually are very much on the front lines of trying to provide
guidance to other newly democratizing states. They actually have a
center for transition to democracy in Hungary. But you look back
and you think, what a remarkable evolution this is.

And I just want to
return to the point that I made earlier. In 1989, in 1990 and 1991
when I was lucky enough to be the Soviet specialist at the end of
the Cold War. Doesn't really kind of get better than that.
(Laughter.) I really looked back and I thought, what we were really
doing was harvesting those good decisions that had been taken back
in the '40s. And we were, in effect, harvesting good decisions that
frankly Ronald Reagan had made in 1982 and '83 and '84 when he held
fast and essentially said that the Soviet Union was an artifact of
history that was going to go away. And I remember people saying,
"How undiplomatic. My goodness. How could you say that about a
great power like the Soviet Union. But you know, it was speaking
the truth. And in times of change, in times of challenge when the
tectonic plates of the international system are moving around, you
have to know where you want to go. It's not necessarily that we or
I will see the full embodiment of the Middle East that we're now
seeking -- the full embodiment of a fully democratic Iraq that has
taken its full place in the international system. It takes
time.

But there are so
many events in history that one day seemed impossible and now we
look back on them as inevitable. And they weren't inevitable. They
came about because the United States of America married power and
principle together, because the United States understood that its
values and its interests were inextricably linked and because the
United States was willing to speak the truth, that men and women
wherever they are, whoever they are, are endowed by their creator
to have these rights. Now, I know that there are days in Iraq when
it seems very, very hard to imagine that that is ever going to take
place.

But I'll just end
by telling you that somebody asked me recently what did I read this
summer, and I read biographies of the Founding Fathers. I read
Jefferson and Franklin and Washington and Hamilton. And I read them
because -- not only because of the ideals that they espoused but
because when you read those biographies and you are inside their
world, there is no earthly reason the United States of America
should have ever come into being. But they somehow overcame the
challenges that they had. They somehow overcame the greatest
military power of the time, basically on the basis of an idea, and
they triumphed.

I think if we stay
true to what we are doing in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the Middle
East, then at some point in time there is going to be that same
sense of triumph. Not our triumph, but the triumph of the people of
that region that will finally claim their place, their rightful
place, among the free peoples of the world.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."

Sign up to start your free subscription today!

Sorry! Your form had errors:

About The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.

Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More